Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - sirs

Pages: 1 ... 1794 1795 [1796] 1797 1798 ... 1806
26926
3DHS / Re: What if?
« on: September 26, 2006, 12:27:27 AM »
Hilarious.  Considering your sole response to my post was a "Do not feed the troll" sign.

That's because that was about all it was worth, in the manner of debate substance.  Perhaps you should go back to your hypothetical of what if the President knew about 911 in advance, and did nothing.  That'd make more entertaining Docufiction fodder than your current what-if

26927
3DHS / Re: I wish some of you would get your terms right
« on: September 26, 2006, 12:22:58 AM »
I never knew I could be under myself      :D

26928
3DHS / Re: Is it torture if you only burn the soles of their feet?
« on: September 26, 2006, 12:20:58 AM »
Yes.  Next question

26929
3DHS / Re: I wish some of you would get your terms right
« on: September 26, 2006, 12:19:29 AM »
Just pointing out that just because you, or someone else, says something, does not necessarily make it so.

Well, to coin the phrase of many a valley girl........d'uh.  Of course there are folks that say one thing, but are lying about it.  Our former President comes to mind.  Point being, so?  Oh yea, you answered that, just "pointing it out" that people do lie.  We thank you for that bit of updated information.  Perhaps at some point, you or Tee can actually demonstrate when and where our current President is lying about not supporting torture.  And one more time, I'm referring to pysical torture, such as joint dislocations, body piercings, stuff like that.  I, nor many others I'd imagine, consider such things as being made to listen to loud music, or made to wear panties on their head, as "torture"

Now, being made to listen to Al Franken.........then perhaps that would be going too far

26930
3DHS / Re: I wish some of you would get your terms right
« on: September 25, 2006, 11:58:17 PM »
My younger brother made continued on-the-record proclamations for years that he wasn't using drugs

My compassion goes out for your brother,..............but so........................?  Trying to imply that I'm lying?  Trying to imply those who support our efforts at taking out terrorists, but draw the line at physical torture are lying??

26931
You missed the best part of the quote..."Maybe you should remember that there was also intelligence saying Iraq didn't have WMDs, but that was pretty much ignored - it didn't bolster the case for war".

Didn't miss it at all.  The fact is the vast preponderance of intel said otherwise however.  I agreed with the NIE & produced it along with a plethora of other sources to back up the decisions made by Bush, in going to war.  Now perhaps, you can demonstrate where anyone claimed that when their (NIE) conclusions point to something unfavorable to the administration, they then can't be trusted

Ball in your court, in any reality

26932
3DHS / Re: I wish some of you would get your terms right
« on: September 25, 2006, 11:18:00 PM »
As tactics that can be used by "Islamofascists" on AMERICAN troops, you have no problems with that?

What planet are you typing from, Tee?  You think that Islamofascist terrorists are going to use loud music?  Humiliation maybe??  Try beheadings, try burning alive.  I could only wish to God that they'd use the tactics we use

 ::)

26933
3DHS / Re: The Real Cartoon Diplomacy
« on: September 25, 2006, 09:28:52 PM »
 ;D

26934
3DHS / Re: I wish some of you would get your terms right
« on: September 25, 2006, 09:28:10 PM »
Asked and answered already.  I'd have no problem with increasing the amount of interrogative techniques, currently PULLED back by this administration.  I have no porblem with non-physical means of interrogation.  I have no problems with using humiliation as an interrogation technique.    I'm getting tired of answering the same question

26935
3DHS / Re: Bill Clinton melts down on Fox News Sunday
« on: September 25, 2006, 09:25:20 PM »
I understood that when Clinton asked Chris Wallace how come he (Chris Wallace) asked only Clinton why he hadn't gone after Osama, how come he never asked any Republicans, Wallace stammered, simpered, sank back, claimed he HAD asked the tough questions of his Republican guests, but when Clinton told him not to bullshit him and the audience, he had NOT asked the tough questions of the Republicans, Wallace had nothing to say, just a shamefaced silly grin and a weak giggle

Well, there ya go, since you didn't watch it a) you didn't know that what was "stammering" as you call it, was Wallace taken back by the tirade Clinton was pulling, and b) you didn't know that Wallace has asked numerous Republicans "tough questions" in regards to why they hadn't caught Usama yet, why is Iraq still as difficult as it is, and why was there not a better exit strategy in place.  Ignorance is indeed bliss. 

Naaaa, you just have to assume since its Fox & Clinton, Clinton was simply showing cajones, and Wallace was simply quaking in his shoes.  Kinda like those delusions you have about mass condoned american military misconduct and racist republicans all over the south.

I'd recommend getting those speakers fixed, but I doubt that'd make a dent in facilitating any objectivity, on your part

26936
3DHS / How did some adherents to the 'religion of peace' react?
« on: September 25, 2006, 09:18:38 PM »
Death threats from the 'religion of peace'
Posted: September 21, 2006

Pope Benedict XVI, during a speech in Germany, at a university where he used to teach, quoted a 14th-century Byzantine Christian emperor: "He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.' ... Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. 'God,' the emperor says, 'is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.'" And, the pontiff even condemned violent jihad, or "holy war."

Note that the pope, in a very lengthy speech critical of the growing secularization of the West, devoted only three paragraphs to the subject of jihad. Moreover, the pope repeatedly said that those words were not his own. And later, the Vatican said the pope intended only to spark dialogue and that the emperor's words in no way reflected the thoughts of the pope himself.

How did some adherents to the religion of peace react?

Angry riots, death threats, burning of the pope in effigy and demands for an apology.

Somali Muslims shot an Italian nun who worked in a Somali hospital. They shot her four times in the back as she left the hospital, and as she lay dying on the ground, she muttered in Italian to her killers, "I forgive, I forgive."

Firebombs were hurled at seven churches during one weekend in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. One group demanded a televised apology, or they would blow up all of Gaza's churches.

As usual, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a "moderate" pro-Arab organization, condemned the pope's words, but not the violent reaction to them.

The deputy leader of the Turkish prime minister's party said, "He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini."

Al-Qaida in Iraq issued this death threat: "You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism when God's rule is established governing all people and nations. ... [The cross-worshipper pope] and the West are doomed. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose the jizya [non-Muslim] tax; then the only thing acceptable is a conversion [to Islam] or [being killed by] the sword."

Following this violent reaction, the pope, at his weekly Angelus blessing this past Sunday, used the word "sorry." Sorry, that is, for the violent reaction to his words. Still, the pope refused to retract his statements. And why should he? After all, the violent reaction proved his point in ways the pope's words never could.

Now, what about stateside? Editorials in two major American newspapers criticized – the pope! In an editorial chastising the pope for alleged insensitivity, the Los Angeles Times said, "The pope shouldn't be quoting people who call [Islam] 'evil.'" The editorial concluded, " ... [P]opes need to watch their words when they have political consequences."

Calling the pope a "doctrinal conservative," the New York Times said, " ... [H]is greatest fear appears to be the loss of a uniform Catholic identity, not exactly the best jumping-off point for tolerance or interfaith dialogue. The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly."

So this is where we are. The people behind the publication of the "offensive" Danish cartoons fear being seen in public, lest they suffer the fate of filmmaker Theo van Gogh. Van Gogh, a descendant of the painter Vincent van Gogh, made a film that criticized Islam's treatment of women. Authorities found him shot and stabbed to death, and a five-page manifesto declaring holy war pinned to his chest with the same knife used to stab him.

An Iranian newspaper recently sponsored a "contest" asking for submissions of anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying cartoons. One showed the Statue of Liberty holding a book on the Holocaust in one hand and giving a Nazi-style salute with the other. The reaction? No Jews rioted, no Jews committed kidnappings, no Jews engaged in beheadings. Meanwhile, the website TheReligionofPeace.com records deadly terror attacks committed by Islamo-facists since 9/11/2001. The tally, as of this writing, stands at 5,870.

So there you have it. The West, says the pope, pursues reason without faith – and Westerners failed to riot. But when the pope accuses Islam of pursuing faith without reason – Islamo-fascists demand an apology ... or else.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52078




26937
3DHS / Re: I wish some of you would get your terms right
« on: September 25, 2006, 09:03:31 PM »


I have challenged you

And I've answered repeatedly what "I" would do, if I were in charge.  Not sure what more you want

Your military is in fact out of control.  It is committing criminal acts never seen in all of WWII on the part of Americans

I rest my case.    8)

26938
3DHS / Re: Dealing with some of those terms: Islamofascism
« on: September 25, 2006, 09:00:41 PM »
The term is an embarrassment only to its inventors and users.  But dream on, Zionists and Zionist apologists.  This article is just too long and too stupid to waste any time on

Now that's the Tee, we all know in love, at his dosconnected best     ;D    And here's a perfect toon for the occasion



26939
3DHS / Re: Dealing with some of those terms: Islamofascism
« on: September 25, 2006, 05:32:34 PM »
Interesting...

I thought so.  And I appreciate you not simply discarding the piece, based solely on its subject

26940
3DHS / Re: WHouse: newspaper's account of Iraq report incomplete
« on: September 25, 2006, 04:41:37 PM »
Intriguing how this new fact has gotten a MSM back burner approach, compared to the trumpet calling it got when only certain segments were leaked to begin with        ;)

Pages: 1 ... 1794 1795 [1796] 1797 1798 ... 1806